SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP reLernowe 1a oe resus sasses " New York, NY 10004-2498 May 12, 2016 very and F The Honorable Katherine B. Forrest, United States District Court, Souther District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007-1312. Re: Inve Aluminum Warehousing Antitrust Litig., 13-md-2481 (KBF) Dear Judge Forrest: We are hesitant to burden the Court with yet another letter on plaintiffs? April 21 motion to compel. In view of the Court’s April 22 observation that plaintifis” motion “raises serious issues,” however, we regrettably feel obliged to make the following observations about plaintiffs’ May 11 letter. * Plaintiffs are utterly silent on the purported relevance of the documents that are the subject of their motion to compel. + Plaintiffs cite no supporting evidence or case law in their letter, instead purporting to summarize facts that we “concedef] or otherwise fail[] to rebut.” (Letter at 1.) Neither is true. ‘+ Plaintiffs again take the baseless position that Metro had a duty to preserve documents starting in 2010 because Metro should have understood at that time that Mr. Burgess-Allen’s August 2010 email was “likely to lead to future litigation.” (Letter at 1.) There is no support in the law for that position. Plaintiffs suggest, with no support in the record, that Metro's treatment of Mr. Burgess-Allen’s Metro email account in 2010 was different from what Metro “routinely did” at the time. (Letter at 1.) In fact, Metro's 30(b)(6) witness testified that Metro “just set{} him up like any other consultant we would typically work with” (McConnell Tr. at 127:2-4) and that Metro did not begin backing up former employees’ emails until 2012 when Mr. McConnell joined the company (id. at 15:22-16:16).© Plaintfis falsely represent that the Senate’s investigation in March 2013 was focused on “the aluminum industry, including lengthening load-out queues, warrant cancellations, and warehouse incentive payments.” (Letter at 1.) That representation is belied by the PSI’s January 2013 questionnaire on which plaintifs themselves rely. + Plaintiffs falsely assert that Metro in the second half of 2013 “collected documents, phones, and computers from custodians who had already left Metro.” (Letter at 2.) Metro did nothing of the sort; it simply searched two former employees’ Metro-issued computers that had been returned to Metro upon the employees’ departure. Lastly, plaintiffs attack the integrity of me and my law firm by baselessly asserting in the public record that my colleagues and I “made repeated efforts, over the course of months, to obscure and hide the fact[s}” and that we “enabled [out client's} spoliation.” (Letter at 2.) It is disappointing that the parties” correspondence on what began as a motion to compel a non-party to produce a limited universe of documents has degenerated into personal and public attacks on the ethics of counsel. Respectfully, Petal, CPeyponan Richard C. Pepperman een ce: All Counsel of Record (via ECF) /n